I like Voepel but this comes across really harsh against Banghart even though she keeps saying it's not about Banghart. (she protesteth too much) Still, I essentially agree with the premise: UNC doesn't give a shit about women's basketball. Still I have no problem with a school going away from always choosing an alumni for the coach. If it's going to be a change, let it be a big change! I think the biggest coaching part of the challenge for Banghart will be dealing with players who are more athletic than academic. Her schemes in the past have been for thinking players rather than doing players. While I'm sure some UNC players have a brain in their head, it simply won't be anything at all like she is used to. She will have players with talents far beyond those she has coached before (in general) but will require totally different types of sets...so we will see if she can adjust. She's obviously shown she can coach really well in the Ivy and I don't see it as totally unreasonable to think she can coach really well in the ACC as well, but it will certainly be a change and a challenge. Best of luck to her.

_________________“Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud.”
― Maya Angelou

I love Voepel but agree she has an agenda against UNC athletic administration in this piece - doesn't feel like objective reporting at all.

Imagine the media that would attend an introductory press conference would to press upon the request for the external report on Hatchell and they don't want to field live questions on that in front of players, boosters, alumni, etc. Strategic decision maybe?

Hiring Banghart makes one think UNC in fact DOES give a shit about women's basketball. She's been whispered for many P5 openings over the years and what she's done at Princeton is impressive with national recruiting.

Hiring Banghart makes one think UNC in fact DOES give a shit about women's basketball. She's been whispered for many P5 openings over the years .....

After reading these comments I chose not to bother reading the article, but I also had this reaction about UNC's choice. Bangart has been on lists for many big time jobs. Why would this not be a big time hire?

For example, I'd rank her well ahead of Harper (or Fortner for that matter) as a serious big time candidate.

And despite what this board seems to think about UNC as a result of the fake class scandal (which was, in the overall scheme of things regarding the academic reputation of the university, extremely limited in scope, albeit a black eye), UNC is considered one of the small handful of really top public universities in the nation. US News ranks them 6th with UVA, Mich, and several California schools. Maybe Bangart will be able to use that to her advantage in recruiting. I'm not sure Hatchell ever paid any attention.

My guess is UNC was strongly attracted by her experience with high academic recruits.

Who hired any bigger name than Bangart this year? So Voepel, why not trash the even more important hire at Tennessee which truly picked the low hanging fruit rather than hire a star.

I love Voepel but agree she has an agenda against UNC athletic administration in this piece - doesn't feel like objective reporting at all.

Mechelle would be the first to tell you it's a subjective venting, presenting thoughts and ideas that formerly would have been swept under the rug. And she tells it like it is.... this sport is one she's gone over and beyond to bolster and support. Why sugar-coat an obviously flawed process that's diminished a product you are passionate about?

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:

If you read the article, Voepel's criticism was of the PROCESS.

Bingo!

Quote:

Was North Carolina intentionally avoiding any past connection to Hatchell with this hire? When asked, Cunningham said no, that it was a case of Banghart being the best candidate. She has no previous ties to the school or the ACC.

How can he KNOW she's "the best" if he's not interviewed 4 or 8 others for contrast? That tests the limits of trust UNC women's fans might feel is genuinely warranted.

I love Voepel but agree she has an agenda against UNC athletic administration in this piece - doesn't feel like objective reporting at all.

Mechelle would be the first to tell you it's a subjective venting, presenting thoughts and ideas that formerly would have been swept under the rug. And she tells it like it is.... this sport is one she's gone over and beyond to bolster and support. Why sugar-coat an obviously flawed process that's diminished a product you are passionate about?

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:

If you read the article, Voepel's criticism was of the PROCESS.

Bingo!

Quote:

Was North Carolina intentionally avoiding any past connection to Hatchell with this hire? When asked, Cunningham said no, that it was a case of Banghart being the best candidate. She has no previous ties to the school or the ACC.

How can he KNOW she's "the best" if he's not interviewed 4 or 8 others for contrast? That tests the limits of trust UNC women's fans might feel is genuinely warranted.

But. Not My Circus, Not My Clowns. I wish 'em all well.

You have no idea how much homework Cunningham had done before choosing Banghart. Nor, I suspect, does Voepel. Interviewing "4 or 8 others" is a pointless waste of time and a measure of nothing. If anything, it would manifest an incompetent circus of a hiring process. The only reasons any AD would interview 8 candidates would be (a) they did a shitty job identifying their prime target(s) or (b) they did a shitty job selling their school to the candidates and kept getting turned down. The best ADs identify quietly who they want and then go get them. No parade of candidates, no drama, no publicity, no leaks.

But in the process of criticizing said process, she's essentially questioning the hiring of Banghart (and even points out the NCAA tourney record, which is a fact, not an opinion), so that's why it feels like a criticism in the choice of coach herself.

Banghart, IMO, is a very, very good hire - one many athletic directors have had on their radars for recent P5 openings. Certainly one I would have hoped Duke would shortlist and identify fairly quickly when the witch is....gone. Now that's not happening, obviously.

So if Cunningham pulled the trigger quickly on Banghart, I'm frankly not surprised, that's a vote of confidence and self assurance. That's how I'm looking at it - it's an impressive hire and impressive turnaround to get the coaching vacancy filled before summer recruiting. A steady, smart hand at the ship.

In defense of Princeton's (and Banghart's) NCAA tourney record, I have to point out that Ivy League teams play DI under basically DIII conditions. They don't give athletic schollies as such, and like Stanford, the athletes need to have the grades to get in, particularly at the top schools. This does kind of hamper their recruiting *just* a smitch!

_________________Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom

You have no idea how much homework Cunningham had done before choosing Banghart. Nor, I suspect, does Voepel.

Nope. I don't. Nor do I really care (never been a big UNC fan)

Voepel, on the other hand, knows far more than anybody here re: such things....her sources are varied & deep, and her writing generally is a distillation of that knowledge. If SHE believes the process was short-shrifted, I'd accept that at face value. [for recent comparison, I think she handled the Hot Mess Hoopla that was TN's firing/hiring with great journalistic aplomb. Like her 'take' or not, I think she's usually pretty spot-on.]

Now. Banghart might just be the Second Coming of Geno-Jaezus-McGraw. I really hope she does well. I have no stake in it whatsoever, as a fan.

Voepel, on the other hand, knows far more than anybody here re: such things....her sources are varied & deep, and her writing generally is a distillation of that knowledge. If SHE believes the process was short-shrifted, I'd accept that at face value. [for recent comparison, I think she handled the Hot Mess Hoopla that was TN's firing/hiring with great journalistic aplomb. Like her 'take' or not, I think she's usually pretty spot-on.]

And of course we all know that no one at ESPN has ever EVER tried to stir up a controversy where none exists just for the sake of attracting eyeballs and clicks. Heavens no!

Voepel, on the other hand, knows far more than anybody here re: such things....her sources are varied & deep, and her writing generally is a distillation of that knowledge. If SHE believes the process was short-shrifted, I'd accept that at face value. [for recent comparison, I think she handled the Hot Mess Hoopla that was TN's firing/hiring with great journalistic aplomb. Like her 'take' or not, I think she's usually pretty spot-on.]

And of course we all know that no one at ESPN has ever EVER tried to stir up a controversy where none exists just for the sake of attracting eyeballs and clicks. Heavens no!

....said the Stir Master Deluxe!

Certainly, some may, but that's a pretty broad brush with which to paint ESPN. And. Nobody makes us read it/click on it/whatever.

Voepel explicitly criticizes not just the process, but the choice to hire Banghart. It is bizarre beyond measure, especially when she then holds up Charlotte Smith as the candidate with better credentials.

You have no idea how much homework Cunningham had done before choosing Banghart. Nor, I suspect, does Voepel.

Nope. I don't. Nor do I really care (never been a big UNC fan)

Voepel, on the other hand, knows far more than anybody here re: such things....her sources are varied & deep, and her writing generally is a distillation of that knowledge. If SHE believes the process was short-shrifted, I'd accept that at face value. [for recent comparison, I think she handled the Hot Mess Hoopla that was TN's firing/hiring with great journalistic aplomb. Like her 'take' or not, I think she's usually pretty spot-on.]

Now. Banghart might just be the Second Coming of Geno-Jaezus-McGraw. I really hope she does well. I have no stake in it whatsoever, as a fan.

I've never been that much of a fan of MV.

She always seems to have an agenda.

_________________"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

I've never been that much of a fan of MV.
She always seems to have an agenda.

And there's the blessing of 'Free Choice'. I personally LIKE her perspective: much better than the namby-pamby style of "Just The Facts, Ma'am". And who on the national NCAA wbb scene offers more insight? Better analysis? There just aren't that many....

PUmatty wrote:

Voepel explicitly criticizes not just the process, but the choice to hire Banghart. It is bizarre beyond measure, especially when she then holds up Charlotte Smith as the candidate with better credentials.

Nope. "Criticizes" the process, okay....in a questioning way, but yes, she's critical. WHY SHOULDN'T SHE BE? She did NOT necessarily 'hold up' Ms. Smith as a better candidate, but named her as an example of one that might have at least merited a phone call.

I'm glad journalists call out the bullshit in the Trump Universe. Mechelle does the same for us in our niche sport, like her take or not:

Quote:

Could this turn out well for the Tar Heels? Sure. But it's fair to ask: Was this the very best résumé UNC saw? Did the Tar Heels pursue successful coaches from any major conference? Or were they not willing to pay top dollar for a coach with a more extensive track record?

These are legitimate questions, for a program that hasn't seen a coaching change in 3 decades, and then, *POOF*! Mid-Major Coach with a not dazzling track record is hired.

I've never been that much of a fan of MV.
She always seems to have an agenda.

And there's the blessing of 'Free Choice'. I personally LIKE her perspective: much better than the namby-pamby style of "Just The Facts, Ma'am". And who on the national NCAA wbb scene offers more insight? Better analysis? There just aren't that many....

PUmatty wrote:

Voepel explicitly criticizes not just the process, but the choice to hire Banghart. It is bizarre beyond measure, especially when she then holds up Charlotte Smith as the candidate with better credentials.

Nope. "Criticizes" the process, okay....in a questioning way, but yes, she's critical. WHY SHOULDN'T SHE BE? She did NOT necessarily 'hold up' Ms. Smith as a better candidate, but named her as an example of one that might have at least merited a phone call.

I'm glad journalists call out the bullshit in the Trump Universe. Mechelle does the same for us in our niche sport, like her take or not:

Quote:

Could this turn out well for the Tar Heels? Sure. But it's fair to ask: Was this the very best résumé UNC saw? Did the Tar Heels pursue successful coaches from any major conference? Or were they not willing to pay top dollar for a coach with a more extensive track record?

These are legitimate questions, for a program that hasn't seen a coaching change in 3 decades, and then, *POOF*! Mid-Major Coach with a not dazzling track record is hired.

The only thing that she succeeded at with me is me thinking that she is a bigger bitch than I did before this article.

_________________"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

These are legitimate questions, for a program that hasn't seen a coaching change in 3 decades, and then, *POOF*! Mid-Major Coach with a not dazzling track record is hired.

Why, then, is she suggesting Charlotte Smith, a mid-major coach with an even worse record? If the Tar Heels had hired a coach coming off of a 9-21 season in the CAA they'd be the laughing stock of the ACC.

I've never been that much of a fan of MV.
She always seems to have an agenda.

And there's the blessing of 'Free Choice'. I personally LIKE her perspective: much better than the namby-pamby style of "Just The Facts, Ma'am". And who on the national NCAA wbb scene offers more insight? Better analysis? There just aren't that many....

PUmatty wrote:

Voepel explicitly criticizes not just the process, but the choice to hire Banghart. It is bizarre beyond measure, especially when she then holds up Charlotte Smith as the candidate with better credentials.

Nope. "Criticizes" the process, okay....in a questioning way, but yes, she's critical. WHY SHOULDN'T SHE BE? She did NOT necessarily 'hold up' Ms. Smith as a better candidate, but named her as an example of one that might have at least merited a phone call.

I'm glad journalists call out the bullshit in the Trump Universe. Mechelle does the same for us in our niche sport, like her take or not:

Quote:

Could this turn out well for the Tar Heels? Sure. But it's fair to ask: Was this the very best résumé UNC saw? Did the Tar Heels pursue successful coaches from any major conference? Or were they not willing to pay top dollar for a coach with a more extensive track record?

These are legitimate questions, for a program that hasn't seen a coaching change in 3 decades, and then, *POOF*! Mid-Major Coach with a not dazzling track record is hired.

I guess the Naismith Coach of the Year Award is just bull shit? Right Michele? And the bitch never even mentions the Naismith Award. Agenda? You bet.

MV wrote a long tribute piece about Smith in Dec 2017, extolling her virtues and touting her as the next UNC coach. Now Smith becomes the better candidate? Why? Because Smith is a UNC grad. That's it. Didn't Michele just finish criticizing Tenn for taking the easy path?

I think Michele may well have a personal friendship with Smith and not being even asked to interview must have been a blow for her. But have a little journalistic integrity Michele. There is no way Smith's resume is in the same universe as Banghart's.

The only thing that she succeeded at with me is me thinking that she is a bigger bitch than I did before this article.

Why, cuz she's a female, and girl journalists should only be NiceyNicey?
If you're a BigBang(hart) fan, then one might not appreciate the article. But you're also missing the Bigger Point: it's NOT about Courtney, but about UNC's hasty process.
(....and you didn't answer the question: WHO'S a better, more consistent journalist in our game?)

Again, her 'success' isn't about garnering favorable opinions, but getting people to express their opinions....in EITHER direction, cuz this is an important component to cultivating passion in our sport.

pilight wrote:

Howee wrote:

These are legitimate questions, for a program that hasn't seen a coaching change in 3 decades, and then, *POOF*! Mid-Major Coach with a not dazzling track record is hired.

Why, then, is she suggesting Charlotte Smith, a mid-major coach with an even worse record? If the Tar Heels had hired a coach coming off of a 9-21 season in the CAA they'd be the laughing stock of the ACC.

I believe she's more concerned about illustrating the point that NO ONE, even a logical 'successor' type (Charlotte) was considered.

If we adopt the viewpoint that Voepel shouldn't question this shallow process, as it appears, it suggests that likewise, when Geno, Tara, Muff, & Kim are replaced, we should not question whatever quick, efficient choice presents itself to accept. Those coaches have built dynasties that deserve the best available coach to carry on. Why not UNC? Love or hate Sylvia, she DID create a true legacy there.

I'm pretty sure most here might have been impressed if say, they'd interviewed or reached out to names like Karl Smesko, Nancy Fahey, Melanie Balcomb, in addition to Banghart, etc. Then, Banghart's selection might have been seen as more deliberate and The Best.

linkster wrote:

I guess the Naismith Coach of the Year Award is just bull shit? Right Michele? And the bitch never even mentions the Naismith Award. Agenda? You bet..

Yes, Let's go with that! Then we could have Carolyn Peck, Connie Yori, and Andy Landers get considered for the job: EXACTLY my point!

I've never been that much of a fan of MV.
She always seems to have an agenda.

And there's the blessing of 'Free Choice'. I personally LIKE her perspective: much better than the namby-pamby style of "Just The Facts, Ma'am". And who on the national NCAA wbb scene offers more insight? Better analysis? There just aren't that many....

PUmatty wrote:

Voepel explicitly criticizes not just the process, but the choice to hire Banghart. It is bizarre beyond measure, especially when she then holds up Charlotte Smith as the candidate with better credentials.

Nope. "Criticizes" the process, okay....in a questioning way, but yes, she's critical. WHY SHOULDN'T SHE BE? She did NOT necessarily 'hold up' Ms. Smith as a better candidate, but named her as an example of one that might have at least merited a phone call.

I'm glad journalists call out the bullshit in the Trump Universe. Mechelle does the same for us in our niche sport, like her take or not:

Quote:

Could this turn out well for the Tar Heels? Sure. But it's fair to ask: Was this the very best résumé UNC saw? Did the Tar Heels pursue successful coaches from any major conference? Or were they not willing to pay top dollar for a coach with a more extensive track record?

These are legitimate questions, for a program that hasn't seen a coaching change in 3 decades, and then, *POOF*! Mid-Major Coach with a not dazzling track record is hired.

I guess the Naismith Coach of the Year Award is just bull shit? Right Michele? And the bitch never even mentions the Naismith Award. Agenda? You bet.

MV wrote a long tribute piece about Smith in Dec 2017, extolling her virtues and touting her as the next UNC coach. Now Smith becomes the better candidate? Why? Because Smith is a UNC grad. That's it. Didn't Michele just finish criticizing Tenn for taking the easy path?

I think Michele may well have a personal friendship with Smith and not being even asked to interview must have been a blow for her. But have a little journalistic integrity Michele. There is no way Smith's resume is in the same universe as Banghart's.

Charlotte was interviewed, she just wasn't offered the job. Shea Ralph was in the mix too but I'm not sure whether she was offered the job or not. MV and some others believed CB did't "pay" her dues to get the UNC job. It wouldn't have been much of an issue to them if she had gotten an upper tier mid major job like George Washington , Marquette or Seton Hall or even a P5 job like Kansas or Wake Forest .

Charlotte was interviewed, she just wasn't offered the job. Shea Ralph was in the mix too but I'm not sure whether she was offered the job or not. MV and some others believed CB did't "pay" her dues to get the UNC job.

These are facts? I didn't follow any pre-hire news to know this, tho I'd heard Shea's name mentioned, but was she actually contacted/interviewed? Anyway....onward and upward. I really do hope they regain some of their old form.